President Trump 2.0

Can we get back to the thread topic please.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Disagree.

The basis of sex is biology (i.e. you always were, always are, and always will be either male or female, and the terms man and woman always and only mean adult human male and adult human female respectively).

Hormone treatment and cosmetic surgery may reduce or modify explicitly male or female behaviours and mask appearances, but serious studies have shown that in sports, especially, men retain biological advantages regardless of what medical treatment they have had. Reducing testosterone isn’t enough. Creating cosmetic sex organs does not reduce bone density.

Many women campaigning in this area also refer to what they call ‘male pattern aggression’; i.e. while the basis of sex is biological, a lifetime of being brought up according to natal sex inculcates patterns of behaviour which cannot easily be un-learned (and which medical treatment does not undo) and which are triggering especially for women who have suffered male violence.

Women seeking man-free spaces, especially where they are vulnerable and/or in intimate settings (medical treatment, toilets, rape crisis services, prisons) should not have to be concerned with whether the individual who enters that space alongside them is a man or not. Nor should they be forced to rely on an administrative process that creates a legal fiction (i.e. in the UK context, the Gender Recognition Act, which is increasingly being shown to be at odds with the rights and protections of the Equality Act). There simply is no way to draw a line between what is an acceptable intrusion by a man into an intimate female space and what is an unacceptable one. No man (i.e. adult human male) should ever be permitted to believe he may use such a space.

It’s worth noting that while this all applies equally to women who pretend to be men (no matter how sincerely they might believe it), the problems are asymmetric. A woman in a men’s toilet is, statistically, at risk. A man in a woman’s toilet is, statistically, a source of risk.

I could go on, and probably will. Meantime if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the objections from an avowedly atheistic point of view you could have a look at what Prof. Richard Dawkins has to say in this area. And I never thought I’d recommend Dawkins to anyone.

I have already addressed the sport issue. I do not feel we diverge on this.

You are focusing on the pre-transition trans individuals which is the difficult one to address. Difficult but not impossible. You start addressing the transitioned individuals and then veer off into sports where the win is easy. You then apply an argument that assumes "men will always be men" and so can still be violent event though they have transitioned to women. I would argue this is a niche position especially saying that women are "triggered" by the prospect of a "man" in their company. You would probably find that you would have higher levels of violence from women on women.

The device used here is to say: "well, they were men, so they must always have the potential to be violent". I'm sorry, this is weak argument when applied on a macro scale and show no compassion for those who genuinely believe they were born into the wrong gender. We, as a society, should be able to accommodate those who are on this journey and, at the same time, ensure that women's rights, as most understand them, are protected. This is the definition of a civilised society.

As Paul mentioned, we are off topic so will say no more on this.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You then apply an argument that assumes "men will always be men" and so can still be violent event though they have transitioned to women.

Your argument falls down at this point.

Because men cannot transition to a women. It is totally impossible.

A man can pretend to be a woman, and surgically alter himself, in the hope to physically look like a woman. But he is not a woman in any way shape or form.

You would probably find that you would have higher levels of violence from women on women.

A very quick google search would show you that is incorrect.

The device used here is to say: "well, they were men, so they must always have the potential to be violent". I'm sorry, this is weak argument when applied on a macro scale

This is entirely correct, whereas…….

and show no compassion for those who genuinely believe they were born into the wrong gender.

Has nothing to with it.

women's rights, as most understand them, are protected. This is the definition of a civilised society.

operative word being women, not men, not Trans-women……which is a subset of men, not women.

As Paul mentioned, we are off topic .

I don’t think he was referring to this side bar……..but if he was I apologise.

Ok, so again, back on topic please.

This topic is about Trump. Direct comments about his order are relevant. This current general gender talk is not.
I think we already have a topic for it, if not, feel free to start one. Anymore off topic posts in here are liable to be removed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...e-2025-02-07/#

In response to a reporter's question about why DOGE needs access to Americans' personal information, like bank accounts and Social Security numbers, the president appeared to support DOGE's efforts while indicating that it did not need the data.

"Well, it doesn't, but they get it very easily, I mean we don't have very good security in our country," Mr. Trump said. However, DOGE has obtained access to the information because of the president's orders allowing it, not because of a lapse in security.

[Pierre]

However, DOGE has obtained access to the information because of the president's orders allowing it, not because of a lapse in security.

Do we have evidence of a direct order from Trump mandating that DOGE is given access to this data?

Originally Posted by Pierre

Do we have evidence of a direct order from Trump mandating that DOGE is given access to this data?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...es-2025-02-05/

Musk operates at Trump's pleasure. The president told reporters on Monday that the billionaire had to seek approval from the White House for any of his actions.

"Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval, and we'll give him the approval, where appropriate; where not appropriate, we won't. But he reports in."

A White House source said, "those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities."

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mus...es-2025-02-05/

Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said

The president told reporters on Monday that the billionaire had to seek approval from the White House for any of his actions.
"Elon can't do and won't do anything without our approval, and we'll give him the approval, where appropriate; where not appropriate, we won't. But he reports in."

But he also said

they get it very easily, I mean we don't have very good security in our country

So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well, that’s not proof that Trump has given a direct order to release data to Musk.

He said

But he also said



So, is there evidence of a presidential order, mandating that DOGE is explicitly given this data?



Also, if there is, if there isn’t, I don’t care. I just want to see evidential back up to claims made.

We all know Trump lies and doesn't remember stuff so him saying what he did to the reporter about poor security is likely rubbish.

TBF I think it's worse if Musk is doing this without a Presidental order. Just means Trump has let him loose across government to do whatever he wants.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

We all know Trump lies and doesn't remember stuff so him saying what he did to the reporter about poor security is likely rubbish.

Well, that comment offers nothing, or adds anything. So we can ignore it.

I’m just looking for evidence to back up claims made. Not seen it yet…………

[Stephen]

There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Trump has given free reign to Musk and the DOGE.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Stephen

There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

That’s not how it works..

If a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence to substantiate that claim.

If a claim is made is and there is no evidence to refute the claim, that does not mean that claim is valid ………..that is basic.

That’s a very….either naive or uneducated position to take……..which is it?

Trump has given free rein to Musk and the DOGE.

Has he? And your evidence of this is?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Stephen

There 8s no evidence that disproves it either so the point you are trying to ,are is invalid.

Trump has given free reign to Musk and the DOGE.

What is doge, from what I can tell its five or six teenager's, that's not a security risk at all...

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What is doge, from what I can tell its five or six teenager's, that's not a security risk at all...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depa...roductivity%22.

---------- Post added at 22:29 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s not how it works..

If a claim is made, it must be supported by evidence to substantiate that claim.

If a claim is made is and there is no evidence to refute the claim, that does not mean that claim is valid ………..that is basic.

That’s a very….either naive or uneducated position to take……..which is it?


Has he? And your evidence of this is?

Here is a link to the executive orders PDF signed by Trump and what DOGE was apparently crested to achieve.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2025-02005.pdf